A story for Mediawatch?
May 21st, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarWhale Oil blogs:
As predicted Sunday ran a story about hell based almost entirely on people I have already covered. They have also inadvertantly outed their source by using emails that only Matt Blomfield could have given them.
In doing so they have ignored my offer to provide more evidence than that which they presents and also have only presented a one sided story based on flakes, failures and cheats like Paul “Weeman” Hinton.
“Weeman” actually lied. He told Sunday about the wrong caravan, I blogged about the caravan and published photos of it previously. The caravan that they talked about wasn’t the caravan that they fell out over, nor did “Weeman” tell them about his little caravan adventures. …
The franchise fees that Sunday quoted were the franchise fees under TPF, not the fees that Hell currently charges, nor charged when under the ownership of Warren Powell, Stu McMullins and Callum Davies.
Perhaps the most egregious part of the show was watching John Hudson standing outside a house and knocking ont he door and stating that it was Warren Powell’s house and that there was no answer. That would be because Warren Powell hasn’t lived in that house for more than a year. So poor was their research that they didn’t even know that.
I’ve got no stake in this issue, but would note Whale has blogged a legion of documents on this ongoing dispute. It would be interesting to have someone ascertain whether or not Sunday did do stuff such as knock on the door of a house where Powell hasn’t lived for a year, just to make it look like he was hiding.
I don’t know the ins and outs of this dispute, but it seems to me that Mediawatch could usefully look at the Sunday programme show, and check whether or not the allegations are correct.
May 21st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Mediawatch? Or the BSA?
Using misleading shots for effect is something I’ve come across before. Like the shots where the cameras covering criminal trials where they’ve been permitted to film the defendant for the first 15 minutes, and then use shots from those 15 minutes as the reaction shots to other evidence.
[DPF: As a general rule I prefer to name and shame, than a formal complaints procedure]
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 4:06 pm
In my experience, dealing with vipers such as these on two occasions, nothing is allowed to spoil a predetermined story.
I mean, the poor bastards had deadlines to meet, budgets to cramp their style. They just could NOT be expected to check anything.
It’s all John Key’s fault.
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 4:34 pm
The main question I have is why didn’t the Hell people front?
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Why would they front?
John hudson had a manufactured story…he had no interest in finding out facts…FFS he stood at the door of a house that Warren Powell hasn’t lived at for over a year and pretended like he was hiding inside…it was a fit up job, sold to them by Matt Blomfield and they bought it and pumped it.
There were so many parts that were either omitted from the story or glossed over.
A classic example was the file footage of Warren Powell that was fitted into the story even though it was years old and never even tagged as file footage.
Then there was Paul Hinton who was exited because he was supplying and running another business in competition to Hell and Sunday used a photo of the wrong caravan and misled on that story…it goes on and on…
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 5:13 pm
I cant understand why anyone would watch programmes like Sunday – they have been for many years like what the Herald is trying to become – sensationalist trashy tabloid media where nothing shall get in the road of a good story.
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I scanned Whale’s material for an hour or more, and then watched Sunday. I remain totally confused – no idea who are the goodies and who are the baddies.
Maybe MediaWatch should look at Whale’s material as well?
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 8:24 pm
@ barry
“…sensationalist trashy tabloid media where nothing shall get in the road of a good story.”
Now that is ironic.
That said Slater has exposed some bloody dodgy operators.
@ orewa
Vote:I agree Slater has probably given too much detail to keep the previous installments in mind when reading the latest. I would however expect Sunday to have made contact with Slater. I gather they didn’t and that should scare us all.
May 21st, 2012 at 9:42 pm
I didn’t realise Whale was an expert on franchise law. So that franchise lawyer on Sunday who criticised Hell was actually talking through a hole in his arse?
Vote:May 21st, 2012 at 9:50 pm
ross69,
I don’t think Whale has defended the Hell franchise contracts at all. Are you assuming things without facts? Or have you turned over a new leaf?
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 7:40 am
It is becoming clear Sunday ignored all the available evidence on the Whale oil site to provide a more in depth and deeper analysis of the situation – I won’t bother watching again – and I used to love this programme
Vote: